Comments (25)

• asheine
  March 18th, 2010 at 00:45

  in 2004, neither the Iraq nor the Afghanistan wars were included in the budget. That 30% should be more like 50%
• hosweetim89
  March 18th, 2010 at 01:28

  Oh nice… 30% to military. Cuz America is always in danger from other countries, namely itself.

  10% probably goes to the shadow government or something.
• sciencemile
  March 18th, 2010 at 01:40

  Actually 20%…some people don’t include S.S. due to a misconception on how the money flows. (it’s not put into a savings account ;P)
• gtbiscool
  March 18th, 2010 at 02:07

  Okay so one person, Robert Higgs, said that. You list no other economist who thinks that way. While there are others who like Robert Higgs are member of the Austrian School of Economics, many others are not adherents to that economy theory. Keynesian, Monetaristic, New Classical, and other schools of economic thought differ on their interpretation. The Austrian school is on the fringes of mainstream economics.
• adrastea99
  March 18th, 2010 at 03:02

  No, the huge debt taken out when increasing the national budget is the biggest problem for America
• WhyCantIVote
  March 18th, 2010 at 03:09

  Military spending only makes up 4% of America’s GDP. It isn’t the biggest problem for America at the moment.
• adrastea99
  March 18th, 2010 at 03:51

  If only that was true….
• WhyCantIVote
  March 18th, 2010 at 04:37

  The other $3.4Trillion the government spends are the problem now though. Although military spending is very high it doesn’t actually take up much of the USA’s GDP.
• adrastea99
  March 18th, 2010 at 05:29

  That’s only because the budget was increased by getting more international credit (and increasing debt even more)

  US federal budget used to be 1.1 trillion when Clinton was in power, it was increased to
  3.1 by Bush and 4.1 by Obama

  Besides, it doesn’t factor in things like “nation building” money sent to Iraq, Afghanistan, Albania etc and payoffs so countries like Israel stay friends

  If you ask me anything that helps the military should be included in the military budget
• ZaoHuZhua
  March 18th, 2010 at 05:37

  Yeah it was a statistic from an earlier year.
• WhyCantIVote
  March 18th, 2010 at 06:14

  54%? No; it’s actually closer to about 20%. The Federal budget is over $3Trillion; the military budget it only about $600Billion
• ZaoHuZhua
  March 18th, 2010 at 06:56

  Now War is 54% congratulations Bush… Obama… McCain… Palin… Biden…???
• jbuzzw
  March 18th, 2010 at 07:21

  @gtbiscool You can continue to believe that myth, but it has been well debunked long ago. I suggest “Regime Uncertainty: Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why Prosperity Resumed After the War” and also “Depression, War and Cold War: Challenging the Myths of Conflict and Prosperity” by Robert Higgs. The key is understanding how the numbers were made to ‘look good’, hence the myth they created.

  “War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or plague brings.” -Mises
• gtbiscool
  March 18th, 2010 at 07:49

  War does not destroy wealth: The Great Depression was finally ended because of World War 2. Without the total war effort that jump started industries and led to a massive new female workforce, with job skills the economy would still have been in a depression.
• Rkmomenah
  March 18th, 2010 at 08:24

  states pay for education. Fed pay for military dudes to go to school
• pikmindoctor
  March 18th, 2010 at 08:53

  Hi, does anyone know where I can get the citation for this?
• Krahl123
  March 18th, 2010 at 09:29

  wait a minute… veterans get as much as the education system? wtf
• jbuzzw
  March 18th, 2010 at 10:19

  Enjoy your new Democrat sponsored income “surtax” to pay for Obama’s escalation of the three wars…

  War destroys wealth. War destroys the wealth of the taxpayers, current and future, who pay for it, and it also destroys the wealth of those who are attacked.
• bs2174
  March 18th, 2010 at 10:59

  I’m not opposed to taxes. Federal or State. I would like the FAIRTAX, do you know what that is or how it would work? I really don’t know how you could possibly come to the comclusion that your suggesting. Perhaps you meant for this comment to be directed towards MarkDouglasC.
• FranklyMisterShankly
  March 18th, 2010 at 11:45

  I suggest you move to Somalia or some other third world Hobbesian state-of-nature hellhole that has none of those pesky taxes that pay for the roads you drive on, the cops on your street, the protections for the food and medicines you consume or the education for yor children.
• FranklyMisterShankly
  March 18th, 2010 at 12:30

  A valid point, but does your NJ water convieniently arrive to your house via a faucet (which, in turn, is connected to a municipal water main and a reservoir constructed with state or federal funds) or do you bring it home on foot by the bucket? If it is the latter, you really do have a credible reason to complain…
• jestertru
  March 18th, 2010 at 12:42

  Housing means programs FHA, Freddie Mac (pre-crash anyway), subsidies for the construction industry, portions of Federal welfare that go to rent subsidies, etc.

  Nutrition means FDA, Dept of Agg and Dept of Education programs involved in research and nutrition, plus welfare cheese, farm subsidies and research.

  The big take home should be, however, how much interest on borrowed money and military/defense (which is non-productive – it earns nothing without use) swamps out all of these.
• vxHamsterxv
  March 18th, 2010 at 13:20

  The video said it was a over simplification. Come on! Go easy on it.
• deeher10
  March 18th, 2010 at 14:06

  lol..
• XxnEr0xXxMaNexX
  March 18th, 2010 at 14:58

  well … dosn’t it ?

Trackbacks - Pingbacks (0)